[pernfilman]

I raced with a Stans raven rear tire last season and a Racing Ralph up front. Today was my first ride back in two months and since then I changed to the Rocket Ron up front.

What I noticed today is that the Rocket Ron has a substantial bite, so much that the bike is completely unbalanced with the virtual slick of a tire known as the RAVEN.

Any hoot have any of you other riders noticed this much of a difference between the Ralph and the Ron, I am thinking of going getting another Ralph for up front and putting the Ron in the rear. The Ralph was more predictable in the corners and braking, the Ron is something else.

 

[briscoelab]

Both I and my wife have been using Rons frotn and rear for a couple years now. Both of us used rons in front and ralphs in the back for a bit, but the Rons roll just as fast and offer a lot more bite (as you've seen). So they dig a lot better for climbs.

Sometimes I'll use a Nic on the front if it's really loose.

Something to think about. The rons are a lot smaller size/volume than a ralph. So I would pair a 2.25" Ron with a 2.1" Ralph. I tried a 2.25" Ralph with a 2.25" Ron and they were quit mismatched in volume.

I think when you have a more balanced ride, traction wise, that you will really like the Ron in the front.

 

[pernfilman]

Is the balance a lot better with the front and rear option with the Rons? Is either one supposed to be the faster tire ?

 

[DavidR1]

I have been running a RR in front and Raven in the back. I like the combo, but was thinking of trying the Ron in the back. Glad to hear others are trying this combo as well.

I was even thinking of running the Aspen in the front and Ron in the back on some tracks. Still haven't been able to get either of these tires (29er) so this combo will have to wait.

 

[briscoelab]

Is the balance a lot better with the front and rear option with the Rons? Is either one supposed to be the faster tire ?

I would run the Ron in the front and the Ralph in back (or another Ron in back).

I really like the Ron/Ron combo better. The rear end hooks up better on climbs and you can push it harder in corners. I haven't noticed any extra rolling resistance from the ron. Also, the Ron is lighter than a ralph... so it's a win win.

 

[Kris]

I would run the Ron in the front and the Ralph in back (or another Ron in back).

I really like the Ron/Ron combo better. The rear end hooks up better on climbs and you can push it harder in corners. I haven't noticed any extra rolling resistance from the ron. Also, the Ron is lighter than a ralph... so it's a win win.

My 2.1 Ron weighed the same 440g as my 2.1 Ralphs. Also I see no size difference between the two types of tires. I've been a long time Ralph user and have been very happy with them, just thought I would try the front Ron for kicks.

 

[briscoelab]

Well, you must have gotten a really overweight Ron then. The 2.1" most people are getting are around or below 400 grams. My 2.25" were both under 450 grams.

Maybe the major difference was is volume and size is in the 2.25" size. I could never imagine running a 2.1" Ron again though... maybe as a mud tire. Mine was much smaller than a 2.1" Ralph. Not so much in tread width, but in casing volume for sure.

I've used 2.1" Ralphs in the past and always liked them. I think the Rons are a better all around tire though and in no place found them lacking when compared to a Ralph.